Are They Created Equal? A Relative Weights Analysis of the Contributions of Job Demands and Resources to Well-Being and Turnover Intention
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building upon the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001) and the extensive research on employee turnover intention and well-being, we examined various demands and resources in relation to these outcomes. This study examined the differential relationship between job demands, and personal and job resources, and two organizational outcomes: turnover intention and emotional exhaustion. The job demands were role overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, and work-life balance. The job resources were resilience, servant leadership, relatedness, autonomy, job opportunities, pay satisfaction, and person-organization fit. An online questionnaire was administered to full-time employees via Qualtrics panel ( N = 364). Job demands were positively related to emotional exhaustion, and personal and job resources were negatively related to turnover intention. Using relative weights analysis, demands and resources were found to account for different amounts of variance in the outcome variables. This study informs our understanding of and contributes to the advancement of the JD-R model to encompass various job demands and personal and job resources and their differential relationship to emotional exhaustion and turnover intention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it